- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) in a case bearing FIR No.100 dated 25.11.1998 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau Patiala; order dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure P-7 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance to the FIR in question were liable to be quashed as there was no valid sanction granted by the competent authority for prosecution of the petitioner. The competent authority had refused the sanction for prosecution of the petitioner on three occasions. Thereafter, the prosecution had submitted untraced report. Learned Special Judge, vide order dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-5), directed the prosecution to proceed further with the matter and submit a fresh report.
(3.) Thereafter, the competent authority granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner, although there was no fresh material available on record. Petitioner had been falsely involved in the case by the complainant as he had made a report against the complainant qua theft of electricity on 14.11.1998. In pursuance to the said report, complainant had deposited Rs. 4,021/- towards penalty on 18.11.1998. Thereafter, petitioner was falsely involved in this case on 25.11.998. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on State of H.P. vs. Nishant Sareen, 2011 AIR(SC) 404, wherein, it was held as under:- "12. It is true that the Government in the matter of grant or refusal to grant sanction exercises statutory power and that would not mean that power once exercised cannot be exercised again or at a subsequent stage in the absence of express power of review in no circumstance whatsoever. The power of review, however, is not unbridled or unrestricted. It seems to us sound principle to follow that once the statutory power under Section 19 of the 1988 Act or Section 197 of the Code has been exercised by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, it is not permissible for the sanctioning authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again. It is so because unrestricted power of review may not bring finality to such exercise and on change of the Government or change of the person authorised to exercise power of sanction, the matter concerning sanction may be reopened by such authority for the reasons best known to it and a different order may be passed. The opinion on the same materials, thus, may keep on changing and there may not be any end to such statutory exercise. In our opinion, a change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for reviewing or reconsidering the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. However, in a case where fresh materials have been collected by the investigating agency subsequent to the earlier order and placed before the sanctioning authority and on that basis, the matter is reconsidered by the sanctioning authority and in light of the fresh materials an opinion is formed that sanction to prosecute the public servant may be granted, there may not be any impediment to adopt such course. 13. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is not even the case of the appellant that fresh materials were collected by the investigating agency and placed before the sanctioning authority for reconsideration and/or for review of the earlier order refusing to grant sanction. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the subsequent order dated March 15, 2008 it is clear that on the same materials, the sanctioning authority has changed its opinion and ordered sanction to prosecute the respondent which, in our opinion, is clearly impermissible." ;